hubspot_get_sales_performance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what format the performance metrics are returned in. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'performance metrics' actually includes, how results are structured, or provide any context about the analytics domain. For a sales performance tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, more contextual information would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'specific time period' which aligns with the startDate and endDate parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get performance metrics') and resource ('for sales reps'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the scope ('over a specific time period') which helps distinguish it from other analytics tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hubspot_get_sales_analytics or hubspot_get_forecast_analytics, which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple analytics-related sibling tools (hubspot_get_sales_analytics, hubspot_get_forecast_analytics, hubspot_get_pipeline_analytics), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.